While I agree in concept I wished you'd have taken it one step further in your story. When you were writing "great" user stories, and there were no questions, what was the outcome of what was developed? If the functionality met all of your needs and the needs of the users, then one could argue add'l collaboration wasn't required because you documented it well enough for the Devs to understand completely. And then one could argue if all that detailed work was a good use of your time as the PO. It's no so much about the process, but the outcome. While I love collaboration refinement sessions, which I agree tend to result in the best products, some individuals and teams are simply not highly engaged during refinement due to cultural differences. Does that mean you force the conversation? Or, is it better to provide great detail as long as the results are good?
I agree on the update part and I've found the best way is to one more update once you're done. It's easy to forget updating a story once you're (nearly) done with an item, and if you ever look back why certain things were done, the last changes & pivots are nearly always missing.
I see this is a pre-COVID post. I am more Philosopher than Agilist these days, but I still keep my finger on the pulse. The problem I have with this notion is the problem I have with Agile more generally. They presuppose a level of competency that is unrealistic at scale. The authors of the Agile Manifesto were all experts, and this edit suited them fine. Given diminishing marginal returns, most companies don't have A-team players. To be honest, many have C- and D-level team members. Practically, this means that even the best post-graduate-level PO will be foolish to solicit solutions from year three students. Of course, this is assuming that the PO isn't also in year three.
I know this comes across as a pessimistic view, but as a reformed Management Consultant, I've seen dozens of companies, and the staffing ranges from pre-schoolers to Rhodes Scholars, but the distribution skews toward the lower end of the scale. A good programmer does not necessarily equate to a person with customer/consumer-based vision. Making this equation will ensure suboptimal output.
After 15 years in Product, I have reached similar conclusion. The value of a user story -- or a PRD for that matter -- is in the discussion. I have for a while now, happily, left Jira to developers. They can run tickets however they like, it's the joint exploration of the the problem and solution I care about.
While I agree in concept I wished you'd have taken it one step further in your story. When you were writing "great" user stories, and there were no questions, what was the outcome of what was developed? If the functionality met all of your needs and the needs of the users, then one could argue add'l collaboration wasn't required because you documented it well enough for the Devs to understand completely. And then one could argue if all that detailed work was a good use of your time as the PO. It's no so much about the process, but the outcome. While I love collaboration refinement sessions, which I agree tend to result in the best products, some individuals and teams are simply not highly engaged during refinement due to cultural differences. Does that mean you force the conversation? Or, is it better to provide great detail as long as the results are good?
Hi scott!
Good point, they missed obvious stuff, there were delays and issues.
Not because what was written was wrong, but because they didn't read it completely.
I agree on the update part and I've found the best way is to one more update once you're done. It's easy to forget updating a story once you're (nearly) done with an item, and if you ever look back why certain things were done, the last changes & pivots are nearly always missing.
I see this is a pre-COVID post. I am more Philosopher than Agilist these days, but I still keep my finger on the pulse. The problem I have with this notion is the problem I have with Agile more generally. They presuppose a level of competency that is unrealistic at scale. The authors of the Agile Manifesto were all experts, and this edit suited them fine. Given diminishing marginal returns, most companies don't have A-team players. To be honest, many have C- and D-level team members. Practically, this means that even the best post-graduate-level PO will be foolish to solicit solutions from year three students. Of course, this is assuming that the PO isn't also in year three.
I know this comes across as a pessimistic view, but as a reformed Management Consultant, I've seen dozens of companies, and the staffing ranges from pre-schoolers to Rhodes Scholars, but the distribution skews toward the lower end of the scale. A good programmer does not necessarily equate to a person with customer/consumer-based vision. Making this equation will ensure suboptimal output.
It is a pre-covid post and still holds true!
I work with many start-ups and scale-ups, it works great there. They don't have the money to hire A-players.
So much yes!
After 15 years in Product, I have reached similar conclusion. The value of a user story -- or a PRD for that matter -- is in the discussion. I have for a while now, happily, left Jira to developers. They can run tickets however they like, it's the joint exploration of the the problem and solution I care about.